Animal multi-component meal

ABSTRACT

The present invention relates to an animal multi-component foodstuff which enables the animal to optimise the macronutrient content of its diet. The invention also relates to food components for use in such a foodstuff, and to use of the multi-component foodstuff in animal health benefits. The present invention relates to an animal multi-component foodstuff comprising two or more compartmentalised food compositions, of which at least two compositions differ in their content of at least two of fat, protein or carbohydrate.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a national stage filing of PCT/GB2003/005599 filedDec. 19, 2003 claiming priority to GB 0229838.8 filed Dec. 20, 2002.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to an animal's multi-component foodstuffwhich enables the animal to optimise the macronutrient content of itsdiet. The invention also relates to food compositions for use in such afoodstuff, and to use of the multi-component foodstuff in animal healthbenefits.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

This invention is based on the observation that when consuming food,animals are attempting to reach a target intake of each of the threemacronutrients (protein, carbohydrate, fat) within a given time period.

This invention addresses the problem of providing palatable foods foranimals, while also offering health benefits to the animal and increasedacceptance/increased enjoyment in feeding.

Historically, the majority of research work on “palatability” (therelative acceptance of and preference for different foods) hasconcentrated on optimising the organoleptical qualities of the food. Theassumption has been that the acceptability of a food and preference forone food over another are primarily driven by the taste and texture ofthe food. The assumption has been that as long as the nutrient contentof foods exceed the minimum requirements of the animal, it will notdiscriminate between diets of differing nutrient profile unless there isan indirect effect on the taste or texture of the diets. This inventionis based on data that demonstrates that this is not the case. When giventhe opportunity to do so, by provision of foods of differentmacronutrient contents, the animals will select between these foods soas to regulate their consumption of each macronutrient in order to reachan optimum ratio.

The present invention has identified that there is a limit to the amountof carbohydrate that animals are willing to consume. In order not to doso, they are prepared to sacrifice their calorie and/or protein intake.However, the short and long-term effects of sacrificing macronutrientcontent of an animal's diet are not beneficial.

Different animals, including different species and breeds of animal willhave different optimum macronutrient content for their diets.Furthermore, an individual animal is likely to have a changing optimummacronutrient content of their diet, depending on factors such as lifestage, sex, sexual activity, illness, seasonal variation, environment,stress levels etc.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Accordingly, the present invention provides a multi-component foodstuffcomprising two or more compartmentalised food compositions of which atleast two of the compositions differ in their content of at least twoselected from the group consisting of fat, protein and carbohydrate.

By the term compartmentalised it is meant that the two or more foodcompositons are not mixed. They may be provided on or in differentcontainers, such as a bowl, plate, packaging. The containers may or maynot be sealed. The multi-component meal comprising the two or more foodcompositions may be provided in unlimited quantities to the animal.

The compositions themselves may be a food product in their own right. Inparticular they may be a food product for a companion animal. Each maybe a dry, semi-moist or a moist (wet) product. Wet food includes foodthat is usually sold in a container, such as a tin, pouch or tray andhas a moisture content of 70% to 90%. Dry food includes food having asimilar composition but with 5% to 15% moisture, often presented assmall biscuit—like kibbles. Semi-moist food includes food having amoisture content of from above 15% up to 70%. The amount of moisture inany product may influence the type of packaging that can be used or isrequired. The food product, of any moisture level may be ready-to-eat.

The compositions encompass any product that an animal consumes in itsdiet. Thus, the compositions may include the standard food products aswell as food products for companion animals, such as food snacks (forexample snack bars, cereal bars, snacks, treats, biscuits and sweetproducts). The composition may be a cooked product. It may incorporatemeat or animal-derived material (such as beef, chicken, turkey, lamb,fish, blood plasma, marrowbone, etc or one or more thereof).Alternatively the composition may be meat-free (preferably including ameat substitute such as soya, maize gluten or a soya product) in orderto provide protein. The composition may contain additional proteinsources such as soya protein concentrate, milk, protein, gluten, etc.The composition may also contain starch, such as one or more grains(e.g. wheat, corn, rice, oats, barley, etc) or may be starch-free. Thecomposition may incorporate or be a gelatinised starch matrix. Thecomposition may incorporate one or more types of fibre such as sugarbeet pulp, chicory pulp, chicory, coconut endosperm fibre, wheat fibreetc. Dairy products, such as those incorporating a cream or a cheesesauce, may be suitable. The composition can also be newly designedproducts currently not available. The most suitable composition may be apet food product as described herein which is sold as a pet food, inparticular a pet food for a domestic dog or a domestic cat. It may beconvenient to provide the compositions in a dry format, such as driedready-to-eat cereal products (often referred to as kibbles).

It is important to allow the animals to freely self-select.

The compositions in the first aspect of the invention may benutritionally complete either alone or in combination and as such, thepractice of the invention may provide a suitable nutritionally completediet for the animal.

In accordance with the first aspect of the invention the two or morefood compositions may differ in their content of at least two of fat,protein and carbohydrate by at least 1% on an energy ratio basis(protein:energy ratio, or fat:energy ratio or carbohydrate:energyratio).

In the foodstuff according to the first aspect of the invention, thedifference in fat content of at least two components may be from 1% to40% on a fat:energy ratio. The difference in protein content of at leasttwo components may be from 1% to 40% on a protein:energy ratio. Thedifference in carbohydrate of at least two components in accordance withthe first aspect of the invention may be from 1% to 40% on acarbohydrate:energy ratio.

The two or more different food compositions may be enriched in one ormore macronutrient i.e. fat, protein and/or carbohydrate. Anycomposition providing an enriched source of fat preferably comprisesfrom 20% to 90% fat on a fat:energy ratio basis. Preferably, such acomposition may comprise from 50 to 75% fat on a fat:energy ratio basis.

Any composition providing an enriched source of protein preferablycomprises from 18 to 90% protein on a protein:energy ratio preferablysuch a composition comprises from 50 to 75% protein on a protein:energyratio.

Any composition providing an enriched source of carbohydrate preferablycomprises from 20 to 90% carbohydrate on a carbohydrate:energy ratio.Preferably, such a composition comprises from 20 to 50% carbohydrate ona carbohydrate:energy ratio.

All ratios described herein are determined as the number of the caloriescoming from the fat, protein or carbohydrate as a % of the totalcalories in the composition.

The multi-component foodstuff of the invention is preferably for acompanion animal, such as a dog or cat, particularly the domestic dog(Canis domesticus) or the domestic cat (Felis domesticus). It may alsobe for a human, an equine animal such as the horse, or other animalincluding fish and birds.

Optionally, at least one composition of the multi-component foodstuffcomprises a dried ready-to-eat cereal product. Two or more compositionsmay comprise such dried ready-to-eat cereal products. Alternatively,together with one or more dried ready-to-eat cereal products, there maybe a wet or semi-moist product.

The food compositions are preferably packaged. In this way the consumeris able to identify, from the packaging, the ingredients andmacronutrient content of the product and confirm that it is suitable forthe particular animal in question. The packaging may be metal (usuallyin the form of a tin or flexifoil), plastic (usually in the form of apouch or bottle), paper or card. The amount of moisture in any productmay influence the type of packaging, which can be used or is required.The foodstuff may be available as a “kit” or “pack” wherein thedifferent food compositions are individually packaged and these packagesare somehow joined together, for example in a box and/or withoverarching packaging for the two or more packages of food compositions.

Thus, the food compositions of the first aspect of the invention may beprovided together.

In accordance with the multi-component foodstuff of the first aspect ofthe invention, one composition may comprise, for example at least 40%fat (on a fat:energy ratio) and a different composition may comprise,for example, at least 40% protein on a protein:energy ratio. The sourcesof fat, protein and carbohydrate can be provided, for example by two ormore different dry kibbles, for example two or more of the kibbles asfollows: PER:FER:CER PME (kcal/100 g) Carbohydrate enriched 26%/22%/52%344 Protein enriched 51%/23%/26% 336 Fat enriched 27%/45%/28% 404wherein PER = protein:total energy ratioFER = fat:total energy ratioCER = carbohydrate:total energy ratioPME = predicted metabolisable energy.

A second aspect of the present invention provides a multi-componentfoodstuff according to the first aspect in the invention, for use inproviding an optimum macronutrient diet for an individual animal. Such aselection can be represented by the triangle of FIG. 1 (representing drydiets of varying macronutrient profile). The foodstuff according to thefirst aspect of the invention allows the animal to regulate the totalintake of each macronutrient. It allows the animal to regulate on fatintake in carbohydrate free diets. It allows the animal to regulate oncarbohydrate intake in carbohydrate-containing diets. All of these havebeen shown to be desired in animals.

The experimental work showed a preferred protein, fat and carbohydrateintake (a target). The effects are large enough to affect the totaldaily intake at the expense of caloric intake. Further, the effects arelarge enough to affect product selection in a choice situation.

All preferred features of the first aspect, also apply to the second.

A third aspect of the invention provides a foodstuff according to thefirst aspect of the invention, for use in animal weight maintenance. Thepresent invention provides a multi-component foodstuff which allowsanimals to self-regulate their food intake. Where the animal canself-select to achieve a target macronutrient content, the totalconsumed is optimal, thus contributing to weight maintenance. In thistext, weight maintenance includes a contribution to the prevention orreduction of obesity.

All preferred features of the first and second aspects, also apply tothe third aspect.

A fourth aspect of the present invention provides a foodstuff accordingto the first aspect of the invention, for use to promote animal healthbenefit.

Such health benefits include improved immune function, reinforcing theimmune system, reduced oxidative damage and DNA damage, ability to copewith oxidative stress/challenge, improved life expectancy, improvedmetabolic rate and function, improved gut function and digestibility,reproductive efficiency, improved behaviour, cognitive function andimproved disease resistance.

A fifth aspect of the invention provides a foodstuff according to anyone of the first to fourth aspect of the invention, wherein thecompositions are separately packaged. The compositions may be separatelypackaged or packaged together.

A sixth aspect of the invention provides food compositions, for use in afoodstuff according to the first to fifth aspect of the invention.

A seventh aspect of the invention provides a method of providing optimummacronutrient diet to an individual animal, the method comprisingfeeding said animal a multi-component foodstuff according to the firstaspect of the invention. The different food compositions of thefoodstuff are provided simultaneously.

An eighth aspect of the invention provides a method of weightmaintenance, the method comprising feeding said animal a multi-componentfoodstuff according to the first aspect of the invention. Themulti-component foodstuff may be provided in unlimited quantities. Thedifferent food compositions of the foodstuff are providedsimultaneously. By weight maintenance is meant maintaining a desiredweight range or weight loss towards a desired weight.

A ninth aspect of the invention provides a method of promoting animalhealth benefit, the method comprising feeding said animal amulti-component foodstuff according to the first aspect of theinvention. The foodstuff may be provided in unlimited quantities. Thedifferent food compositions of the foodstuff are providedsimultaneously.

All preferred features of the first aspect of the invention, also applyto the other aspects of the invention, mutatis mutandis.

In aspects of the invention which describe “feeding”, it is meantallowing the animal access to the foodstuff of the invention to feedfrom.

The present invention is based on the observation that when consumingfood, animals are attempting to reach a target intake of each of thethree macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate and fat) within a given timeperiod. The invention describes a multi-component foodstuff which allowsan individual animal to reach its target consumption of protein, fat andcarbohydrate. According to the invention, the animal is offered a choiceof two or more food compositions of differing macronutrient ratios. Thefoods can be offered continuously or at every meal occasion. The targetmacronutrient consumption will vary over time depending on factors suchas life stage, sex, sexual activity, illness, seasonal variation,environment, stress levels etc. Therefore continuous access to thesefood components allows the animal to vary its consumption of eachmacronutrient independently and to a level optimal for any point intime. Self-selection also occurs within individual meals. The inventionoffers benefits of increased enjoyment of eating and health benefits forthe animal.

Existing food products are formulated to provide a specific fixed ratioof carbohydrate, fat and protein. This invention allows the cat to varyits consumption of each of the macronutrients independently and to alevel optimum for any point in time.

The present invention provides advantages. It offers an optimum diet foran individual animal based on that animal's metabolic needs as opposedto transitory sensory preferences.

The invention provides a solution to the problem of providing palatablefoods for animals, as well as offering benefits to the animal ofincreased acceptance/increased enjoyment in feeding. Furthermore theinvention provides an increased enjoyment/satisfaction by thecarer/owner of a pet (companion) animal.

The enjoyment of the animal and/or increase in acceptance/palatabilitycan be determined, for example, by one or more of the following:

an increase in the quantity of foods consumes;

a decrease in the frequency of refusals to eat over an extended periodof time;

an increase in enthusiasm during the meal as indicated by a reduction inthe time taken to start a meal and/or an increase in the speed at whichfood is consumed;

the animal chooses the food over another food;

the animal refuses other foods;

or by any other behaviour by a pet animal which is taken by theowner/carer to be an indication of enjoyment of the food, for example:

the animal rubs around the owner/carer when serving the food;

the animal is inactive/rests or sleeps after eating;

the animal licks itself or washes after eating.

In addition to these benefits, providing a food which matches theoptimum macronutrient ratio for a particular animal offers healthbenefits to the animal, such as maintenance of a healthy weight bodymass index, obesity prevention, improved immune function, reducedoxidative damage, and DNA damage, ability to cope with oxidative stresschallenge, improved life expectancy, improved metabolic rate andfunction, improved gut function and digestibility, reproductiveefficiency, improved behaviour, cognitive function and improved diseaseresistance.

The present invention is now described with reference to the followingnon-limiting examples:

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The invention is described with reference to the figures, in which:

FIG. 1 is a representation, graphically, of the macronutrient content offood.

FIG. 2 is a graph of percentage of total intake of food over time. Asshown in days 1 to 7, naïve cats selected diet with preferred flavourregardless of nutrient profile. After monadic training period (days 65to 71), the same cats consistently rejected low protein/high fat foodregardless of flavour added.

FIG. 3 shows the percentage change in body weight over time in weeks.

FIG. 4 shows the amount eaten (g) versus time in days.

FIG. 5 shows the amount eaten (g) of three different diets.

FIG. 6 shows the proportion of total eaten of each diet for individualcats during naive self-selection.

FIG. 7 shows the daily mean intake eaten (g), averaged over all cats,for each diet during each of the eight 3-day cycles.

FIG. 8 shows the daily mean intake eaten (g) for three diets, averagedover cats and all cycles for each diet during the learning phase.

FIG. 9 shows the daily mean intake eaten (g) averaged for all cats, foreach diet during experienced self-selection.

FIG. 10 shows the mean daily intake eaten (g) for all three diets,averaged all cats and all days during experienced self-selection.

FIG. 11 shows the proportion of total eaten for each diet, averaged overall days, for each cat during experienced self-selection.

FIG. 12 shows the mean daily percentage of energy obtained from eachmacronutrient during the trial.

FIG. 13 shows the daily mean food intake, averaged over all cats foreach diet during the naïve self-selection phase.

FIG. 14 shows the mean intake eaten (g), averaged over all cats and alldays, for each diet during naive self-selection.

FIG. 15 shows the proportion of total eaten averaged over all days, foreach cat during the naïve self-selection phase.

FIG. 16 shows the mean daily intake (g) pattern for the three dietsthroughout the course of the day in naïve self-selection.

FIG. 17 shows the daily mean food intake (g), averaged over all cats,for each diet during each of the eight 3-day cycles.

FIG. 18 shows the daily mean food intake (g), averaged for the cats andall cycles, for each diet during the learning phase.

FIG. 19 shows the proportion of total eaten averaged over all days, foreach cat in the learning phase.

FIG. 20 shows the mean daily food intake (g) pattern for the three dietsthroughout the course of the day in the learning phase.

FIG. 21 shows the daily mean food intake (g), averaged over all cats,for each diet during experienced self-selection phase.

FIG. 22 shows the daily mean food intake, averaged over all cats and alldays for each diet during the experienced self-selection phase.

FIG. 23 shows the amount of each diet consumed as a proportion of thetotal food eaten, averaged over all days, for each cat during theexperienced self-selection phase.

FIG. 24 shows the mean daily food intake (g) pattern of the three dietsthroughout the course of the day in the experienced self-selectionphase.

FIG. 25 shows the mean daily P/FER intake during the trial.

FIG. 26 shows the mean intakes (g) throughout the trial.

FIG. 27 shows the percentage of energy derived from each macronutrientduring the trial.

FIG. 28 shows the mean intakes (g) throughout the trial.

FIG. 29 shows the percentage of energy derived from each macronutrientduring the trial.

FIG. 30 shows the % energy requirement (kcal) over the trial for theMiniature Schnauzers.

FIG. 31 shows the % energy requirement (kcal) over the trial for CockerSpaniels.

FIG. 32 shows the % of daily energy requirement eaten over the trial forLabrador puppies.

FIG. 33 shows the % of daily energy requirement eaten over the trial forLabrador adults.

FIG. 34 shows the % of daily energy requirement eaten over the trial forLabrador seniors.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION EXAMPLES Example 1

Study to Assess the Effect of Dietary Macronutrient Profile on FoodSelection in Cats

Summary

Adult cats were fed homogenised diets composed of soy isolate, chickenbreast, lard and either carob solution or water. The diets wereisocaloric and consisted of a range of ratios of protein to fat energy(P-F:ER), these being 10% PER/90% FER (a PER thought to be close to thecat's minimum protein requirement), 40% PER/60% FER (a PER typical for acanned product) and 70% PER/30% FER. Three flavours of differentrelative preference were included with the diets, such that each of the3 groups of cats received different flavour-diet combinations.

During the initial 7 days of self-selection/3-way preference, the naivecats (with no prior experience of the diets and flavours) appeared tomake their diet selection based on the hedonic cues associated with thediets. They selected the diet associated with the preferred flavour,irrespective of the amount of soy isolate and lard.

During the 39 days of learning/training, the cats changed theirmacronutrient selection and, in terms of mean food intake, respondeddifferently to the macronutrient profile and flavour of the diets.

During the final 7 days of self-selection/3-way preference, these nowexperienced cats showed different feeding responses to the initialself-selection and appeared to select diets on some other basis,consequently selecting a different macronutrient profile overall. Itappeared that the experienced cats had ‘learned’ about the macronutrientprofile of the diet and changed their preferences accordingly, with thelow protein/high fat food consistently rejected, regardless of theflavour added. The protein to fat ratio below which the product isrejected is not known and will be investigated in further studies. Thisshould identify the minimum protein level for cat food, based onacceptance rather than nutritional requirement.

Investigation of protein to fat energy ratio (P-F:ER) intake as apotential driver of diet selection showed that the mean P-F:ER consumedduring the initial self-selection phase was influenced by the hedoniccues, with each test group having a mean PER intake driven by the dietwith which the preferred flavour was associated (mean PER intake 34%;FER intake 66%). In contrast, the mean P-F:ER intake of the same catsonce they were experienced was more consistent, with less influence fromthe hedonic cues during the final self-selection (mean PER intake 49.8%;FER intake 50.2%).

Overall these results suggest that repeated exposure to theseexperimental diets over an extended period of feeding led to catschanging their dietary preferences, in order to select specificmacronutrient profiles. In doing so, they responded less to the hedoniccues and more to the underlying nutritional cues.

Introduction

The traditional approach to palatability has been that taste, smell andtexture are very important drivers of intake on initial exposure to afood. More recent studies in cats have led to the hypothesis that, withexperience, the underlying nutrition may over-ride these sensory cues,thus causing food choice to change (if it is of benefit for the animalto do so).

The results of previous work suggest that repeated exposure toexperimental chicken and lard-based diets over an extended period offeeding leads to cats changing their dietary preferences, in order toselect specific macronutrient profiles. In doing so, they respond lessto the hedonic cues and more to the underlying nutritional cues. Thisobservation opposes the established belief that cats do not possess‘nutritional wisdom’, since hedonics are the only driving factor in foodselection.

The aim of this study was to determine whether cats ‘learned’ about themacronutrient profile of the diet, such that the initial hedonicresponse was subsequently influenced by physiological responses (whichmay vary with the macronutrient profile of the diet). Cats were testedprior to experiencing the experimental diets and flavours, then after aperiod of monadic, repeated exposures to the diets, to determine iftheir feeding responses had changed through experience.

In order to control the macronutrient profile of the diet within moredefined limits than are achievable using a typical wet product recipe,relatively ‘clean’ sources of macronutrients were used. In the secondpart of this first phase of work, the macronutrients protein and fatwere investigated—soy isolate was used as the predominant proteinsource, with some chicken breast present in all diets, and lard was usedas a fat source.

Diets were designed consisting of increasing levels of protein (soyisolate and chicken), combined with decreasing levels of fat (lard). Inorder to ‘confuse’ the cats and mask the natural smell and flavour ofthe diets, additional flavour cues were added (see ‘Methods’ section),to reduce selection of a product purely on the basis of its inherentsmell or flavour. This should demonstrate if the cats ‘learned’ aboutand selected diets on the basis of their protein or fat content per se,when fed over an extended period. The trial was also designed toindicate whether cats preferred a diet containing a specific level ofprotein and/or fat, when offered an ad libitum choice of the 3 diets.

Methods

Animals

Cats (n=27) were selected that had no prior experience of theexperimental diets or flavours. The cats were housed individually andwere socialised as a group every day.

Cats were randomised into balanced groups by age, sex and body weight.

Diets

Three isocaloric diets were fed, all designed to supply 70 kcal ME(metabolisable energy) per 100 g final product. The diets consisted of arange of ratios of protein to fat energy (P-F:ER), these being 10%PER/90% FER (a PER thought to be close to the cat's minimum proteinrequirement), 40% PER/60% FER (a PER typical for a canned product) and70% PER/30% FER. In this study, the diets were essentiallycarbohydrate-free, with the calorie deficit remaining after inclusion ofprotein provided by fat calories.

Diets were prepared daily and consisted of a homogenised mixture ofpowdered soy isolate, cooked chicken breast, lard and either carobsolution (3% or 0.5%, w/w) or water. The diets contained differingamounts of carob solution, in order to accomplish similar consistencies.In a preliminary study diets with the same base recipe were preparedwith 3 different concentrations of carob solution (0.75%, 1.5% and 3%,w/w) and were fed in a repeated intake test to a panel of 24 cats. Theresults indicated that the concentration of carob did not affect therelative acceptance of the diets, with no significant difference betweenthe mean intakes recorded (p=0.66).

These recipes were formulated predictively using a combination ofproximate analyses of powdered soy isolate (from ICN), processed chickenbreast and lard, and published food composition data, to give finalproducts with PER's of 10%, 40% and 70% and an energy density of 70kcal/100 g final product. Textural differences between the diets werereduced by homogenising the diets, and including varying amounts ofcarob solution or water, thus making the diets relatively similar inconsistency.

The nutritional content of each diet was estimated using the abovesources of information. Diets were formulated to meet minimum WALTHAMCat Nutrient Guidelines for adult maintenance, through addition ofvitamin and mineral mixes, taurine and L-methionine (soy isolate beinglow in sulphur-containing amino acids) and were made up fresh on a dailybasis.

Three flavour systems of different relative preference were includedwith the diets, such that each group of cats received differentflavour-diet combinations. This made a total of nine test diets(tables), all of which were fed. The concentration of each flavour wasdetermined by mixing it with the diet and tasting the differentflavour-diet combinations. The flavours were added at concentrationswhich were just detectable by humans by aroma and taste, so werepresumed to be detectable by cats. The inclusion level of the flavourswas the same for each diet, irrespective of the protein content. Thethree flavours used were Quest rabbit (0.06% (w/w); 27 drops rabbitflavour added per kg product), Firmenich fish powder (1.5% (w/w); 15gfish powder added per kg product) and Firmenich orange oil (0.03% (w/w)of a 19% (w/w) solution of orange oil in sunflower oil; 13 drops dilutedorange oil added per kg product). [Diluted orange oil was prepared as 10drops orange oil in 1 g sunflower oil].

The cats were split into 3 groups (n=9 per group), such that each groupof cats received different flavour-diet combinations throughout thestudy, as shown in Table 2. TABLE 1 Flavour-diet combinations fed.Product PER Flavour A 10% fish (F1) B 40% rabbit (F2) C 70% orange (F3)D 10% orange (F3) E 40% fish (F1) F 70% rabbit (F2) G 10% rabbit (F2) H40% orange (F3) I 70% fish (F1)

TABLE 2 Flavour-diet matrix fed. Cats Diet-flavour combinations Group 110% + fish 40% + rabbit 70% + orange Group 2 10% + orange 40% + fish70% + rabbit Group 3 10% + rabbit 40% + orange 70% + fishFeeding Protocols

The feeding protocol consisted of an acclimatisation pre-feed followedby 4 different feeding regimens—an initial self-selection/3-waypreference phase, a learning/training phase, a finalself-selection/3-way preference phase and a challenge to investigatepreferred flavour selection.

Acclimatisation Pre-feed (7d)

To familiarise the cats to the format of the homogenised diets (withoutexposing them to the soy/chicken/lard diets), a pre-feed of FelineConcentration Instant diet (FCID) was included.

Daily requirements of FCID were calculated on the basis of individualcat bodyweights, then an additional 25% was added, so that each cat (inprinciple) was being fed to appetite.

Cats were offered a third of their daily requirement of FCID in themorning, and the remainder of their requirement in the afternoon, whichremained overnight.

The amount of food offered was increased to 50% above requirement formost of the cats, who consistently consumed all food offered. Foodoffered was not increased beyond this, since those cats which continuedto consume all of this increased ration were deemed to be overeating.

All food intakes were recorded manually every time food was replaced.

Naïve Self-Selection/3-way Preference Phase (7d)

For the subsequent 7 days, each cat was given ad libitum access to all 3of the experimental diets.

Food was replaced with fresh twice per day −150 g of each diet wasoffered in the morning, which was replaced with 250 g fresh food in theafternoon, which remained overnight.

The position of the products was rotated daily.

Food intakes and meal patterning were recorded constantly. In addition,all food intakes were recorded manually every time food was replaced.

Learning/Training Phase (39d)

During the learning/training phase, each cat should have received asingle product each day, with the 3 diets fed in daily rotation for 30days. Each cat should therefore have experienced each test diet 10times.

After completion of cycle 8, supplies of soy isolate ran out, so allcats were transferred to unflavoured FCID for 12 days. The learningphase re-started and the cats were given 5 further cycles of learning(cycles 13 to 18). In total, the cats experienced each test diet 13times.

In order to reduce sequence effects, e.g. to avoid a cat alwaysreceiving diet B after diet A, 3 different orders of diet presentationwere followed.

Each cat received 200 g of food in the morning, which was replaced with300 g of the same diet in the afternoon, which was left overnight.

Food intakes and meal patterning were recorded constantly. In addition,all food intakes were recorded manually every time food was replaced.

Experienced Self-Selection/3-way Preference Phase (7d)

For the subsequent 7 days, each cat was given ad libitum access to all 3of the experimental diets they had experienced in the learning phase.

Food was replaced with fresh twice per day −150 g of each diet wasoffered in the morning, which was replaced with 250 g fresh food in theafternoon, which remained overnight.

The position of the products was rotated daily.

Food intakes and meal patterning were recorded constantly. In addition,all food intakes were recorded manually every time food was replaced.

NOTE: The amount of food offered was increased in cats that consistentlyconsumed all of the food provided.

Bodyweights

Bodyweights were recorded twice per week and closely monitored to assessadequate food intakes.

Data Analysis

During the learning phase, graphs are expressed with ‘Cycle’ on thex-axis, each ‘Cycle’ being a pseudo-randomised 3-day rotation ofproducts, and therefore an exposure to each of the diets.

Results

Diets

Nutritional Properties

As mentioned previously, the diets were formulated predictively to givefinal products with PER's of 10%, 40% and 70% and an energy density of70 kcal/100 g final product.

Proximate analysis values of the diet ingredients were used, togetherwith Atwater factors (protein 4 kcal/g, fat 9 kcal/g, carbohydrate 4kcal/g), to calculate the maximum PME of each ingredient.

The maximum PME for each of the diet ingredients was then used tocalculate the PME for each of the diets, based on the proportions of theingredients in each formulation. Corrected PER was calculated usingthese corrected ME values and the protein values from the diet analysis.The protein content (determined from analytical results) was multipliedby 4 kcal/g and expressed as a percentage of the ME of the diet.Corrected FER was calculated by difference, the diets consisting only ofprotein and fat calories.

Flavours

The relative preference for all of the flavour-diet combinations plusthe unflavoured diets was assessed.

Statistical analysis of the data by multifactor ANOVA showed that therewas a significant difference between the mean intakes of the test diets(p<0.001).

The results confirmed that the relative preference for the three flavoursystems used was fish>rabbit=orange oil (p<0.001).

The results also showed that the three flavours maintained this rankingacross all three base diets (10%, 40%, 70% PER) to which they wereadded.

It was interesting to note that for the unflavoured diets, the relativepreference was 40%>70%>10%, however, these differences were notstatistically significant. The 40% PER diet was generally preferred overthe other test diets, even when flavours were associated with them.

Animals

Four cats were removed from the study after 2-3 weeks on the trialproducts. This was due to consistently low food intakes.

Testing Responses to Novel Flavours and Macronutrient Profiles: NaïveSelf-Selection Phase

During the self-selection phase, all 3 test diets were fed every day,with each cat having ad libitum access to sample from the 3 dietsthroughout the day.

During this initial phase, the cats had no prior experience of theseflavours and experimental diets

In each test group, cats ate a greater proportion of the diet combinedwith fish flavour, fish being the preferred flavour hedonically.

These data suggest that cats naive to the diet format and flavoursappeared to make their diet selection based on the hedonic cuesassociated with the diet. They selected the diet associated with thepreferred flavour, irrespective of the amount of soy isolate and lard.

Combining the data from all 3 test groups and assessing diet selectionbased on protein alone, during the naïve self-selection phase, there wasa significantly greater proportion of the 10% PER diet eaten comparedwith the 40% and 70% PER diets (p<0.01).

For all cats, determination of diet selection based on flavour aloneshowed that the preference for fish flavour over rabbit and orangeflavours was clearly apparent (p<0.001).

Looking at individual cats, the majority of cats within each test groupshowed similar diet preferences.

There was no common feature in those cats which showed a different dietselection to the rest of each test group.

Training Cats to Recognize Links between Flavours and MacronutrientProfiles: Learning Phase

During the learning/training phase, each diet was fed on a differentday, i.e. only one diet was fed per day. Food intake data were analysedby a 3-day cycle, during which each cat experienced each of the 3 dietswithin its test group.

Graphical comparison of the mean proportions of food eaten in all thecats at the start (cycle 1) and end (cycle 17) of the learning phase byeither flavour alone or PER alone showed interesting differences.

There was a significant difference (p<0.001) between the mean intakes offish, rabbit and orange flavour at the start of the learning phase, withfish flavour preferred over the other 2 flavours. However, by the end ofthe learning phase, there was no significant difference between theproportions of the flavours consumed.

In contrast, there was no significant difference between the meanintakes of 10%, 40% and 70% PER at the start of the learning phase,however, by the end of the learning phase, the mean intakes of all ofthe diets were significantly different, with 70% >40% >10% PER.

As seen previously, the intake of the 10% PER diet during the learningphase was markedly lower than the total intake of the other diets,particularly at the end of the learning phase.

These data suggest that in terms of mean food intake, macronutrientprofile and flavour behaved differently during the learning phase. Themacronutrient profile selected changed over the 39 days of feeding(excluding the days during which FCID was fed).

Testing Trained Links between Flavours and Macronutrient Profiles:Experienced Self-Selection Phase

During the self-selection phase, all 3 test diets were fed every day,with each cat having ad libitum access to sample from the 3 dietsthroughout the day.

Between the first ‘naïve’ self-selection phase and this secondself-selection phase, the cats experienced a training period to helpthem associate certain flavours with specific macronutrient profiles,and were thus classified as ‘experienced’.

Diet selection in the experienced self-selection differed to that seenin the naive self-selection, where fish flavour (irrespective of PER)was preferred in each test group.

In experienced group 1 cats, cats ate a significantly greater proportionof 70% PER+orange compared with 10% PER+fish and 40% PER+rabbit.

In experienced group 2 cats, cats ate significantly differentproportions of each diet, with 40% PER+fish>70% PER+rabbit>10%PER+orange.

In experienced group 3 cats, cats ate significantly differentproportions of each diet, with 70% PER+fish>40% PER+orange>10%PER+rabbit.

In all test groups, the 10% PER diet was rejected relative to the othertwo test diets. In group 1, this rejection was not as great as in theother test groups. One hypothesis for this may be that in group 1, the10% PER diet was combined with fish flavour, thus improving the hedonicacceptability of the product.

These data suggest that cats with experience of the diet format andflavours consistently rejected the low protein/high fat diet regardlessof the flavour associated with it. Experienced cats appeared to basetheir diet selection on some other attribute of the products, ratherthan purely on hedonics.

Combining the data from all 3 test groups and assessing diet selectionbased on protein alone, during the experienced self-selection phase,there were significantly different proportions of each diet consumed,with 70%>40%>10% PER (p<0.001). This was different to the diet selectionseen in the same group of cats during the naïve self-selection phase,where 10%>40%=70% PER.

For all cats, determination of diet selection based on flavour aloneshowed that the preference for each flavour was significantly different,with fish>orange>rabbit (p<0.001). This was similar to that seen in thenaive self-selection phase.

Investigation of Daily Diet Selection within each Test Group

Please note that all food intakes in this section are based on manuallyrecorded data, without any correction for evaporative losses from thefood. Typical evaporative loss from these homogenised products has beenestimated as 6-7% of the initial weight of the food over a 16 hourperiod (i.e. overnight).

The previous sections (3.3, 3.4 and 3.5) described mean food intakeswithin the test groups, however, it is of interest to compare the dailyfood intakes in more detail.

Group 1

FIG. 2 shows the daily diet selection of group 1 cats throughout thestudy (naïve self-selection, learning and experienced self-selectionphases).

Naïve self-selection: 10% PER+fish was markedly preferred over the othertwo test diets from day 1 of the naïve self-selection. Intakes of 40%PER+rabbit and 70% PER+orange were similar.

Learning phase: In cycle 1, intakes of all 3 test diets were verysimilar, but during the learning phase, the proportion of 10% PER+fishconsumed decreased and the proportion of 40% PER+rabbit consumedincreased. After the period of FCID, intakes of the 40% and 70% PERdiets separated, with 70% PER+orange preferred over 40% PER+rabbit.

Experienced self-selection: the proportion of 70% PER+orange consumedwas greater than the other two diets from day 1. Slightly more 40%PER+rabbit was consumed than 10% PER+fish; the proportion of 10%PER+fish consumed was approximately 20%.

P-F:ER Selection as a Potential Driver of Macronutrient Selection

The mean PER intake was calculated for each phase of the trial from foodintake data:

Mean PER eaten per day=(Amount test diet eaten (g)×PER of testdiet)/Total amount eaten (in g)*

For self-selection phase (naïve/experienced)=sum of 3 test diets eatenper day (in g)

For learning phase=sum of test diets eaten over 3-day cycle (in g)

Self-selection phase (naïve/experienced): Mean PER intake perday=Average of PER eaten per day

Learning phase: Mean PER intake per cycle=Average of PER eaten across3-day cycle

The mean FER intake was calculated by difference from the above data.

Throughout the naïve self-selection phase, the mean P-F:ER intake percycle was calculated. The PER intake varied between each test group ofcats, the variation driven predominantly by the PER of the diet withwhich fish flavour was associated (since in each test group, naive catsconsumed most of the diet paired with fish flavour—see section 3.3). Itshould be noted that if diet selection was completely random (i.e.sampling from 10%, 40% and 70% PER diets), the mean PER intake would be40% (with an FER intake of 60%).

All 3 diets were offered together in a sufficient quantity for the catsto achieve their daily energy requirement by eating only one of theproducts if they desired.

Throughout the learning phase, the mean P-F:ER intake per cycle wascalculated. The PER intake was higher than in the previous phase and wasfairly constant for each group of cats. The mean PER intake graduallyrose throughout the learning phase. On average, the PER selectedreflected random sampling from the diets, as described above, i.e. meanPER intake of 40% and FER intake of 60%. This was seen clearly in groups1 and 2, where the mean PER intake was approximately 40% and FER intake60%, suggesting that the cats were consuming equal amounts of each diet.When the amount of each diet eaten (in grammes) was compared, this wasnot the case and different quantities of each diet were being consumed.These data suggest that the mean PER and FER intakes were not derivedfrom random diet sampling.

Throughout the experienced self-selection phase, the mean P-F:ER intakeper cycle was calculated. Compared with the naïve self-selection, theresponse during the experienced self-selection was very different. Themean PER intake remained remarkably constant within each group of catsand was at a higher level than seen initially.

Conclusions

During the initial 7 days of self-selection/3-way preference, the naïvecats (with no prior experience of the diets and flavours) appeared tomake their diet selection based on the hedonic cues associated with thediets. They selected the diet associated with the preferred flavour,irrespective of the amount of soy isolate and lard.

During the 39 days of learning/training, the cats changed theirmacronutrient selection and, in terms of mean food intake, respondeddifferently to the macronutrient profile and flavour of the diets.

During the final 7 days of self-selection/3-way preference, these nowexperienced cats showed different feeding responses to the initialself-selection and appeared to select diets on some other basis,consequently selecting a different macronutrient profile overall. Itappeared that the experienced cats had ‘learned’ about the macronutrientprofile of the diet and changed their preferences accordingly, with thelow protein/high fat food consistently rejected, regardless of theflavour added. The protein to fat ratio below which the product isrejected is not known and will be investigated in further studies. Thisshould identify the minimum protein level for cat food, based onacceptance rather than nutritional requirement.

This study confirms that the macronutrient profile (in this case,protein and fat) can affect the long term feeding performance of a food.Feeding regimen is important in this, since the cats required a‘learning’ period of repeated exposures before changing their dietselection.

Investigation of mean P-F:ER intake as a potential driver of feedingbehaviour showed that naïve cats consumed a variable P-F:ER during theself-selection phase, which was driven by hedonic cues (mean PER intake34%; FER intake 66%), whereas the mean P-F:ER intake of the same catsonce they were experienced tended to be more constant, and overall gavea higher PER value during the self-selection phase (mean PER intake49.8%; FER intake 50.2%). These results are similar to those seenpreviously, where the mean PER intake of naïve cats was 42.5% andexperienced cats was 54.9%. It appears that P-F:ER intake is a driver offeeding behaviour and macronutrient selection in the long term.

A graph showing details of the preferences is shown in FIG. 2.

The results show that cats which are naive to the diets and flavoursselect diets based on hedonic cues (i.e. added flavours), whereasexperienced cats appear not to use the hedonic cues and select adifferent macronutrient profile overall. Macronutrient profile thereforeaffects the long-term feeding performance of a food and diet selection.The study also shows that animals will reject a food if its proteinlevel is too low—the 10% PER/90 FER diet was consistently rejected aftera period of learning, irrespective of the flavour added.

The study shows that animals try to make food selections in order toachieve a metabolically desirable mean PER intake.

Example 2

Effect of Macronutrient Profile on the Long-Term Acceptance of Food

Summary

This trial aimed to establish whether the naïve response to the hedonicproperties of three diets (carbohydrate enriched, protein enriched andfat enriched) could be modified by a monadic learning phase.

12 adult cats were fed 3 diets during this study following the feedingprotocol: 7-days of self-selection/3-way preference followed by 24-daysof monadic learning (one product per day) and finally 7 days ofself-selection/3 way preference. Cats had approximately 22 hours accessto food every day during the trial.

10 out of the 12 cats completed the study; 2 cats were removed from thestudy due to inadequate food intakes. The mean percentage change in bodyweight during the trial for the cats that completed the study was +2.39%

The naive response of the cats to the 3 diets was that the proteinenriched diet had the highest mean intake (22 g) whilst the carbohydrateand fat enriched diets were slightly lower (mean intake 16 g and 17 grespectively).

The experienced response of the cats to the 3 diets was that thecarbohydrate enriched diet was almost completely rejected, with a verylow mean intake (6 g). There was a slight increase in the mean intake ofthe fat enriched diet (21 g), compared to the naive response, and alarge increase in mean intake of the protein enriched diet (41 g).

Investigation of the proportion of energy intakes of protein, fat andcarbohydrate (P/F/CER) showed naive cats consumed 36%/30%/34%respectively, averaged over all cats and all days of the naïveself-selection phase. The same analysis of P/F/CER during theexperienced self-selection showed the proportion of macronutrientsconsumed was 42%/30%/29% respectively averaged over all cats and alldays of the experienced self-selection phase

In summary, the carbohydrate enriched diet was almost completelyrejected after a monadic learning phase whilst selection of the proteinenriched diet almost doubled in terms of g intake. Analysis of themacronutrient selection of the cats showed a 6% increase in protein and5% decrease in carbohydrate intake after a period of monadic learning,the proportion of fat intake remained constant

Introduction

A previous study was run to establish whether the naïve response to themacronutrient profile of three dry diets could be modified by a periodof monadic learning on a panel of 163 cats in domestic homes in Germany.

The aim of this study was to use the same diets and trial design on afurther panel of cats.

Methods

Animals

Cats (n=12) were selected that had been fed dry kibble diets throughoutlife, from the time they were weaned.

The cats were housed individually and were socialised as a group everyday.

Diets

Three dry kibble diets were fed during the study. One enriched withprotein, one enriched with fat and one enriched with carbohydrate.Analysis of the diets provided the predicted metabolisable energy (PME)content of each diet, the values of which are shown in Table 1. Theprotein, carbohydrate and fat content of each diet was analysed andcalculated to provide the ratio of each macronutrient relative to thetotal energy (PME) of each diet i.e. Protein/Fat/Carbohydrate EnergyRatio (P/F/CER in Table 1). TABLE 1 PME and macronutrient energy ratiosfor the diets used Diet Code PER:FER:CER PME (Kcal/100 g) A(carbohydrate 26%/22%/52% 344 enriched) B (protein enriched) 51%/23%/26%336 C (fat enriched) 27%/45%/28% 404Feeding Protocols

The feeding protocol consisted of 3 different feeding regimes—an initialself-selection/3 way preference, a learning/training phase and a finalself selection/3-way preference phase.

Naïve Self Selection/3-Way Preference Phase (7d)

Each cat received ad libitum access to all 3 experimental diets.

150 g of each diet was offered at 10:15 am and left available until 8:15am the following morning giving each cat 22 hours exposure to the dietson each day. This feeding cycle was repeated daily for 7 days.

The position of the diets was rotated daily.

Food intakes and feeding patterns were recording constantly. Inaddition, food intakes were recorded manually every time food wasreplaced.

Learning/Training Phase (24d)

During the learning/training phase, each cat received a single test dieteach day

The three diets experienced by the cats during the naïve self selectionwere fed in daily rotation for the 24 days. Each cat thereforeexperienced each experimental diet 8 times.

150 g of a single diet was offered at 10:15 am and left available until8:15 am the following morning. This feeding cycle was repeated daily for24 days, giving each cat 22 hours exposure to the diet on each day.

Cats were randomly assigned to one of 6 groups with each group receivingthe diets in a different rotation sequence.

Food intakes and feeding patterns were recorded constantly. In addition,food intakes were recorded manually every time food was replaced.

Experienced Self-Selection/3-Way Preference (7d)

Each cat received ad libitum access to all 3 experimental diets.

150 g of each diet was offered at 10:15 am and left available until 8:15am the following morning giving each cat 22 hours exposure to the dietson each day. This feeding cycle was repeated daily for 7 days.

The position of the diets was rotated daily.

Food intakes and feeding patterns were recording constantly. Inaddition, food intakes were recorded manually every time food wasreplaced.

Bodyweights

Bodyweights were recorded twice weekly and closely monitored to assessadequate food intakes.

Data Analysis

Feeding pattern data were analysed by computer software that splits thedata into individual meals, giving time, duration, rate and latency ofeach. These could then be analysed for each cat and each diet.

Note: During the learning phase, graphs are expressed with ‘cycle’ onthe x-axis. Each ‘cycle’ is a pseudo-randomised 3-day rotation ofproducts, and therefore includes an exposure to each of the 3 diets.

Results

Animals

Two cats were removed from the trial due to consistently poor foodintakes. All food intakes for these cats are excluded from this reportthus decreasing the sample size to 10 cats.

The mean percentage change in bodyweight, averaged over all cats thatcompleted the study from the start of the trial to the end of the trialwas +2.4%. The progress of this change is shown in FIG. 3.

There were only 2 cats that completed the study which showed a decreasein bodyweight (−2.53% and −0.79% respectively). 2 cats' bodyweightsincreased more than 6% during the trial. All other cats showed a, lessthan 5%, increase in bodyweight. 6 out of 10 of the cats showed a dip inbodyweight during the first couple of weeks of the trial this is oftenseen in cats that change diets.

Naïve Self-Selection Phase

During the naïve self-selection phase, all 3 test diets were fed everyday. All cats received ad libitum access to the diets for 22 hours eachday. The diets were removed at 8:15 am every morning and replaced withfresh diet at 10:15 am.

All cats were naïve to the experimental diets except for 3 cats who wereexposed to each diet twice during a six-day period.

FIG. 4 shows the daily mean food intake, averaged over all cats, foreach diet during this 7-day phase. Mean daily intakes of each diet weresimilar, intakes of diet B (high protein) were slightly higher on day2,4,5 and 6 than the other 2 diets.

FIG. 5 shows the mean food intake, averaged over all cats and all daysfor each diet during the 7-day naive self-selection phase. On average,the intake for diet B (high protein) was slightly higher than both dietA and diet C (p=0.02)

FIG. 6 shows the proportion of total eaten of each diet, averaged overall days, for each cat during naive self-selection

Learning Phase

FIG. 7 shows the daily mean intake, averaged over all cats, for eachdiet during each of the eight 3-day cycles. In the figure, significantlydifferent p<0.001.

FIG. 8 shows the daily mean intake, averaged over cats and all cycles,for each diet during the learning phase (including results from naïveself-selection).

Experienced Self-Selection

FIG. 9 shows the daily mean intake, averaged over all cats, for eachdiet during experienced self-selection. In the figure, significantlydifferent p<0.001.

FIG. 10 shows the mean daily intake, averaged over all cats and alldays, for each diet during experienced self-selection.

FIG. 11 shows the mean daily intake, averaged over all cats and alldays, for each diet during experienced self-selection.

P/F/CER Selection as a Potential Driver of Macronutrient Selection

Each cats mean energy ratio intake was calculated for each phase of thetrial from the food intake data.

The calculation used was:${{Mean}\quad{PER}\quad{eaten}\quad{per}\quad{day}} = \frac{\sum\limits_{{Overall}\quad 3\quad{test}\quad{diets}}\left( {{Amount}\quad{of}\quad{test}\quad{diet}\quad{eaten}\quad(g) \times {PER}\quad{of}\quad{test}\quad{diet}} \right)}{{Total}\quad{amount}\quad{eaten}\quad(g)*}$

Mean P/F or CER eaten per day=

*For self-selection phase (naïve/experienced)=sum of 3 test diets eatenper day (g)

For learning phase=sum of 3 test diets eaten over 3-day cycle (g)

The daily/per cycle mean PER intake was calculated for each cat.

This was repeated for both FER and CER.

Table 3 shows the mean daily/per cycle PER, FER, CER for each phase ofthe trial, averaged over all cats. TABLE 3 Mean cycle PER, FER and CERintake for each phase Naïve self-selection Learning Experiencedself-selection PER 36.2 36.2 41.6 FER 29.6 31.7 29.7 CER 34.2 32.1 28.8

TABLE 4 Mean intake (g) of each diet during each phase Diet A (HighDDiet B (High Carbohydrate) Protein) Diet C (High Fat) Naïveself-selection 15.8 21.6 17 Learning 35.7 68.4 70.2 Experienced self-5.5 40.9 20.5 selection

FIG. 12 shows the mean daily PIF/CER intake during the trial.

Example 3

Effect of Macronutrient Profile on the Long-Term Acceptance of Food:

Effect of Varying Protein and Fat Energy Ratios

Summary

12 adult cats were fed 3 diets (one high in protein, one high in fat andone intermediate) during this study following the feeding protocol:7-days of self-selection/3-way preference followed by 24-days of monadiclearning (one product per day) and finally 7 days of self-selection/3way preference. Cats had approximately 22 hours access to food every dayduring the trial.

All 12 cats completed the study. The mean percentage change inbodyweight during the trial for the cats was +2.2%

The naïve response of the cats to the 3 diets was that the high proteinand intermediate diets were preferred (mean intakes 19 g and 22 grespectively) over the high fat diet (mean intake 11 g)

The experienced response of the cats to the 3 diets was similar to thatseen during the naïve self-selection in that the high protein andintermediate diets were preferred (mean intakes 26 g and 25 grespectively) over the high fat diet (mean intake 6.4 g).

Investigation of the proportion of energy intakes of protein and fat(P/FER) showed naive cats consumed 37%/38% respectively, averaged overall cats and all days of the naive self-selection phase. The sameanalysis of P/FER during the experienced self-selection showed theproportion of macronutrients consumed was 39%/36%respectively averagedover all cats and all days of the experienced self-selection phase.

Cats consumed equal amounts of each diet during the monadic learningphase. Analysis of feeding pattern on the days cats were offered thehigh fat diet alone suggests the cats were either “holding out” forsomething better and then eating the diet, or, were regulating the speedof fat intake.

In summary, the high protein and intermediate diets appeared to behedonically more palatable than the high fat diet. The increasedrejection of the high fat diet alongside the increase in PER anddecrease in FER during the experienced self-selection (+2% and −2%respectively) provides evidence that the macronutrient profile of thehigh fat/low protein (22%PER/53%FER) diet is less preferable than theintermediate (34%PER/42%FER) and high protein (48%PER/26%FER) diets.

Introduction

This study is to establish whether the naïve response to themacronutrient profile of dry diets can be modified by a period ofmonadic learning. The aim of this study was to assess diets with equalcarbohydrate energy ratios (CER) but variable protein and fat energyratios such that one diet had a high fat energy ratio (FER), another hada high protein energy ratio (PER) and a third diet had an intermediateenergy ratio of protein and fat.

Methods

Animals

Cats (n=12) were selected that had been fed dry kibble diets throughoutlife, from the time they were weaned.

The cats were housed individually and were socialised as a group everyday.

Diets

Three dry kibble diets were fed during the study. The diets weredesigned to all contain the same level of carbohydrate whilst one dietwas enriched with protein, one enriched with fat and the other was theintermediate of the other two diets. Analysis of the diets provided thepredicted metabolisable energy (PME) content of each diet, the values ofwhich are shown in Table 1. The protein, carbohydrate and fat content ofeach diet was analysed and calculated to provide the ratio of eachmacronutrient relative to the total energy (PME) of each diet i.e.Protein/Fat/Carbohydrate Energy Ratio (P/F/CER in Table 1). TABLE 1 PMEand macronutrient energy ratios for diets Diet Code PER:FER:CER PME(Kcal/100 g) B (High Protein) 48%/26%/26% 346 C (High Fat) 22%/53%/25%391 F (Intermediate) 34%/42%/24% 427Feeding Protocols

The feeding protocol consisted of 3 different feeding regimes—an initialself-selection/3 way preference phase, a learning/training phase and afinal self selection/3-way preference phase.

Naïve Self Selection/3-Way Preference Phase (7d)

Each cat received ad libitum access to all 3 experimental diets.

150 g of each diet was offered at 10:15 am and was left in the lodgeuntil 8:15 am the following morning giving each cat 22 hours exposure tothe diets on each day. This feeding cycle was repeated daily for 7 days.

The position of the diets available was rotated daily.

Food intakes and feeding patterns were recorded constantly. In addition,food intakes were recorded manually every time food was replaced.

Learning/Training Phase (24d)

During the learning/training phase, each cat received a single test dieteach day

The three diets experienced by the cats during the naïve self-selectionwere fed in daily rotation for the 24-days. Each cat thereforeexperienced each experimental diet 8 times.

150 g of a single diet was offered at 10:15 am and left in the lodgeuntil 8:15 am the following morning. This feeding cycle was repeateddaily for 24 days, giving each cat 22 hours exposure to the diet on eachday.

Cats were randomly assigned to one of 6 groups with each group receivingthe diets in a different rotation sequence.

Food intakes and feeding patterns were recorded constantly. In addition,food intakes were recorded manually every time food was replaced.

Experienced Self-Selection/3-Way Preference (7d)

Each cat received ad libitum access to all 3 experimental diets.

See Phase 1

The position of the diets available was rotated daily.

Food intakes and feeding patterns were recorded constantly. In addition,food intakes were recorded manually every time food was replaced.

Bodyweights

Bodyweights were recorded twice weekly and closely monitored to ensureadequate food intakes.

Data Analysis

Feeding pattern data were analysed by computer software that splits thedata into individual meals, giving time, duration, rate and latency ofeach parameter. These could then be analysed for each cat and each diet.Overall, 5% of the data was lost for this trial.

Note: During the learning phase, graphs are expressed with ‘cycle’ onthe x-axis. Each ‘cycle’ is a pseudo-randomised 3-day rotation ofproducts, and therefore includes an exposure to each of the 3 diets.

Results and Data Analysis

Animals

All cats completed the study. The mean percentage change in bodyweightfrom the start of the trial to the end of the trial was +2.2% averagedover all cats.

Naïve Self-Selection Phase

During the naïve self-selection phase, all 3 test diets were fed everyday. All cats received ad libitum access to the diets for 22 hours eachday. The diets were removed from each lodge at 8:15 am every morning andreplaced with fresh diet at 10:15 am.

The cats had no prior experience of the experimental diets prior to thestart of this initial phase.

FIG. 13 shows the daily mean food intake, averaged over all cats, foreach diet during this 7-day phase. Daily mean intakes of diet B (highprotein) and diet F (intermediate) fluctuated throughout the phase butwere consistently higher than diet C (high fat).

FIG. 14 shows the mean food intake, averaged over all cats, and all daysfor each diet during the 7-day naïve self-selection phase. On average,the intakes of diet B (high protein) and diet F (intermediate) weresignificantly higher than diet C (high fat), p<0.001

FIG. 15 shows the proportion of the total intake of each of the dietsfor individual cats averaged over all 7 days of the naïve self-selectionphase. This shows that the majority of cats follow the pattern shown inFIG. 14.

FIG. 16 shows the results of using the feeding data to look at theintake pattern of the 3 diets throughout the course of the day. Foranalysis the day was arbitrarily split into in six 4-hour time blocks.The highest intakes of each diet were during the first 4-hour time blocki.e. after food was offered (9 am-1 pm). The intake for diet C (highfat) remained fairly constant throughout the rest of the day whilstconsumption of diet B (high protein) and diet F (intermediate) were morevariable. The highest mean intakes were of diet B (high protein) between5 am and 5pm then diet F (intermediate) from 5pm to 5 am, however,individual cat intake patterns and daily mean intake patterns showconsiderable variability in feeding patterns.

Learning Phase

During the monadic learning phase each cat received ad libitum access toa single test diet for 22 hours each day, with each group of catsreceiving different diets according to cyclic rotation. The diets wereremoved from each lodge at 8:15 am every morning and replaced with freshdiet at 10:15 am to allow for cleaning. Food intake data was analysed by3-day cycle, during which each cat experienced all 3 diets.

FIG. 17 shows the daily mean food intake, averaged over all cats, foreach diet during each of the 3-day cycles. Intakes for all dietsremained fairly constant during the learning phase. Intakes of diet F(intermediate) were marginally higher than the other test diets duringcycles 11, 12 and 14 but overall there were no differences in the intakeof the three test diets

FIG. 18 shows the daily mean food intake, averaged over all cats and allcycles, for each diet during the learning phase. There were nosignificant differences in the intakes of each diet during this phase.

FIG. 19 shows the proportion of total intake of each of the diets foreach cat averaged over all cycles of the learning phase. This showsthat, during the learning phase, individual cats followed a similarintake pattern to the overall group mean for each diet.

FIG. 20 shows the results of using the data to look at the intakepattern of the 3 diets throughout the course of the day, in 4-hour timeblocks. Note: No food was available to the cats between 8.15 am and10.15 am each day. Cats were offered one diet per day, unlike the othertwo phases, for which all three diets were offered simultaneously. Asimilar pattern of food intake to that seen during the naive selfselection phase was seen during the learning phase such that majority ofthe high protein and intermediate diets was consumed between 9 am and 5pm. The amount of high fat diet consumed between 9 am and 1 pm wasrelatively low compared to the other test diets, was similar between 1pm and 5 pm and then highest between 5pm and lam. Individual cat intakepatterns and daily mean intake patterns show variability.

Experienced Self-Selection

During the experienced self-selection phase, all 3 test diets were fedevery day. All cats received ad libitum access to the diets for 22 hourseach day. The diets were removed at 8:15 am every morning and replacedwith fresh diet at 10:15 am to allow for cleaning.

FIG. 21 shows the daily mean food intake, averaged over all cats, foreach diet during each day. Intakes for diet C (high fat) wereconsistently low throughout this phase whilst diet B (high protein)remained fairly constant. Intakes of diet F (intermediate) fluctuateddaily above and below that of diet B (high protein).

FIG. 22 shows the mean intake, averaged over all cats, for each dietduring the 7-day experienced self-selection phase. On average, theintakes of diet B (high protein) and diet F (intermediate) weresignificantly higher than of diet C (high fat), p<0.001

FIG. 23 shows the proportion of total food intake of each of the dietsfor individual cats averaged over all days of the experiencedself-selection. Proportions vary considerably amongst individuals. Twoout of the 12 cats in the study had a markedly higher than averageproportional intake of diet C (high fat). The remaining 10 cats almostcompletely rejected diet C (high fat). Two cats followed the mean intakepattern seen in FIG. 22 whilst the rest of the cats had either a highintake of diet B (high protein) or diet F (intermediate).

FIG. 24 shows the results of using feeding data to look at the intakepattern of the 3 diets throughout the course of the day, in 4-hour timeblocks. Note: No food was available to the cats between 8.15 am and10.15 am each day. The highest intakes of each diet were during thefirst 4-hour block after food is offered. The intake for diet C (highfat) remained fairly constant throughout the rest of the day whilstdiets B (high protein) and F (intermediate) fluctuated. The highest meanintakes were of diet B (high protein) between 5 am until 5pm then diet F(intermediate) from 5 pm to 5 am, however, individual cat intakepatterns and daily mean intake patterns show considerable variability infeeding patterns.

P/F/CER Selection as a Potential Driver of Macronutrient Selection

The mean PER intake was calculated for each cat for each phase of thetrial from the food intake data.

The calculation used was:${{Mean}\quad{PER}\quad{eaten}\quad{per}\quad{day}} = \frac{\sum\limits_{{Overall}\quad 3\quad{test}\quad{diets}}\left( {{Amount}\quad{of}\quad{test}\quad{diet}\quad{eaten}\quad(g) \times {PER}\quad{of}\quad{test}\quad{diet}} \right)}{{Total}\quad{amount}\quad{eaten}\quad(g)*}$

* For self-selection phase (naïve/experienced)=sum of 3 test diets eatenper day (g)

For learning phase=sum of 3 test diets eaten over 3-day cycle (g)

The daily/per cycle mean PER intake was calculated for each cat. Thiswas repeated for FER.

Note. CER values were 25% for all calculations performed and areexcluded from the discussions below.

Table 3 shows the mean daily/cycle PER and FER for each phase of thetrial, averaged over all cats. If random sampling had taken place andthus equal amounts of each diet were eaten, the expected PER/FER wouldbe 35%/40%. Energy ratios during the learning phase were very close torandom sampling values as the g intake for each diet were very similar(See Table 4 for g intake). Energy ratios during the naïveself-selection were closer to random sampling values than during theexperienced self-selection. PER was higher and FER was lower than randomsampling in the naïve and experienced phases. TABLE 3 Mean cycle PER,FER and CER intake for each phase Naïve self-selection LearningExperienced self-selection PER 36.7% 34.7% 39% FER 38.4% 40.4% 36%

TABLE 4 Mean daily intake (g) of each diet during each phase Diet B DietC Diet F (High Protein) (High Fat) (Intermediate) Naïve self-selection19.2 10.9 21.5 (3 diets offered) Learning 51.9 51.6 55.8 (one dietoffered) Experienced self- 26.0 6.4 25.0 selection (3 diets offered)

FIG. 25 shows the mean P/FER for each cycle during each phase of thetrial. PER was lower than FER during the naïve self-selection for eachcycle (day), except the 3^(rd) when both were about equal. PER intakewas lower and FER was higher during the monadic learning phase thanduring the naive self selection phase and remained relatively constantduring each 3-day cycle of the monadic learning phase. There was aswitch during the experienced self-selection such that PER was higherthan FER for all cycles (days) except 19 and 20 when they werecomparable.

Conclusions

Group analysis of cycle mean intake showed that the high protein(48%PER/26%FER) and intermediate diets (34%PER/42%FER) were equalbefore, during and after a period of monadic learning. This suggeststhat, on average, these diets are equal in preference in terms ofhedonics and macronutrient profile. Analysis of individual cat responseshowed a distinctive shift in preference in the majority of experiencedcats towards one or the other of these diet.

Mean cycle intakes of the high fat diet (22%PER/53%FER) wereconsiderably lower than the other diets during the self-selection phaseswhen all 3 diets were offered. There was a decrease in intake of thediet after a period of monadic learning suggesting that themacronutrient profile was less desirable than the other diets.

Food intakes of all 3 diets were equal during the monadic learning phasewhen each diet was offered individually each day. Cats were thereforewilling to eat the high fat diet if no other option was available.Investigation of feeding pattern during the monadic learning phaseshowed that the cats didn't eat the high fat diet as rapidly as theother test diets after they were offered in the morning. This could bethat the cats were holding out for another option on the days that theywere offered the high fat diet and then eating it when no other dietswere offered. Alternatively they were regulating the rate at which fatwas consumed.

Example 4

Effect of Macronutrient Profile on the Long-Term Acceptance of Food:

Effect of Varying Carbohydrate and Fat Energy Ratios

Summary

12 adult cats were fed 3 diets (one high in carbohydrate, one high infat and one intermediate). This study the followed the following feedingregime: 7-days of self-selection/3-way preference followed by 24-days ofmonadic learning (one diet per day) and finally 7 days ofself-selection/3-way preference. Cats had approximately 22 hours accessto food every day during the trial.

Of the 12 cats allocated, 11 completed the study.

One cat was withdrawn from trial in the 3^(rd) week due to low intakesin the self-selection phase and frequent refusals in the monadic phase.Data from this cat has not been calculated in the means.

The mean percentage change in bodyweight during the trial, for the catsthat completed the study was −1.6%.

The 1^(st) phase response of the cats to the 3 diets was that the highcarbohydrate and intermediate diets were preferred (mean intakes 18.4 gand 14.3 g respectively) over the high fat diet (mean intake 9.3 g). Itshould be noted however, that the intake of intermediate fluctuated andthe intake of the high fat diet showed a marked upturn at the 7^(th)cycle, which may indicate that a change of preference was taking place.

The experienced response of the cats to the 3 diets was very differentto that seen during the naive self-selection. High fat diet waspreferred (mean intake 57.3 g) to the high carbohydrate and intermediate(mean intakes 3.1 g and 7.5 g respectively.

Investigation of the mean proportion energy intakes of protein and fat(PER/FER) showed cats consumed 24.4% PER, 34.1% FER in the naïveself-selection phase. The same analysis of PER/FER during theexperienced self-selection showed the mean proportion of macronutrientsconsumed to be 26.9% PER, 50.7% FER in the experienced self-selectionphase.

In summary, the high fat diet appeared to be hedonically more palatablethan the high carbohydrate and intermediate diets. The increasedpreference for the high fat diet against the decrease in CER and PERduring the experienced self-selection (+14.6% and −2% respectively),provides evidence that the macronutrient profile of the high fat(22%PER, 54%FER, 24%CER) diet is preferred to the intermediate (24%PER,38%FER, 38%CER) and high carbohydrate (26%PER, 21%FER, 53%CER) diets.

Introduction

The aim of this study was to assess diets with similar protein energyratios (PER) but variable carbohydrate and fat energy ratios. One diethad a high fat energy ratio (FER), another had a high carbohydrateenergy ratio (CER) and a third diet had an intermediate energy ratio ofcarbohydrate and fat.

Methodology

Animals

Cats (n=12) were selected that had been fed dry kibble diets throughoutlife, from the weaning.

The cats were housed individually and were socialised as a group everyday.

Diets

Three dry kibble diets were fed during the study. The diets weredesigned to all contain the same level of protein whilst one diet wasenriched with carbohydrate, one enriched with fat and a third was theintermediate of the other two diets. Analysis of the diets provided thepredicted metabolisable energy (PME) content of each diet, the values ofwhich are shown in Table 1. The protein, carbohydrate and fat content ofeach diet was analysed and calculated to provide the ratio of eachmacronutrient relative to the total energy (PME) of each diet i.e.Protein/Fat/Carbohydrate Energy Ratio (P/F/CER in Table 1). TABLE 1 PMEand macronutrient energy ratios for BS0114 diets % expected Diet CodePER:FER:CER PME (Kcal/100 g) A (High 26/21/53 346 Carbohydrate) D(Intermediate) 24/38/38 390 C (High Fat) 22/54/24 436Feeding Protocols

The feeding protocol used is set out in Example 2.

Bodyweights

Bodyweights were recorded twice weekly and closely monitored to ensureadequate food intakes.

Data Analysis

Is as set out in Example 2.

Results and Data Analysis

Animals

Of the 12 cats that started, 11 cats completed the study.

The mean percentage change in bodyweight from the start of the trial tothe end of the trial was −1.6% averaged over all cats.

FIG. 26 shows the mean intakes throughout the trial.

This chart shows the mean intakes throughout the trial. The 3 phases areidentified as:

Naïve=cycles 1 to 7

Learning=cycles 8 to 15

Experienced=cycles 16 to 22.

It can seen quite clearly that the cats having sampled all the dietsduring the naïve phase of self-selection, then proceeded to make a clearchoice of the high fat diet over the intermediate and high carbohydratediets in the remaining 2 phases.

P/F/CER selection as a potential driver of macronutrient selection

The mean FER intake was calculated as set out in Example 2.

If random sampling had taken place and thus equal amounts of each dietwere eaten, the expected PER/FER/CER would be 24% /38%/38%.

Table 3 shows the mean cycle PER, FER and CER intake. TABLE 3 Mean cyclePER, FER and CER intake for each phase. Phase 3 Phase 1 Phase 2Experienced self- Naïve self-selection Learning/Monadic selection PER(%) 19.5 18.5 17.7 FER (%) 34.7 42.3 49.4 CER (%) 19.5 39.3 32.9

During the naive phase all 3 energy ratio intakes were less than wouldbe expected from random sampling.

FER and CER ratios during the learning phase were greater and PER wasless than expected if random sampling was taking place.

During experienced self-selection FER was greater and both PER and CERwere less than expected if random sampling was taking place. TABLE 4Mean daily intake (g) of each diet for each phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase3 Naïve self- Learning/ Experienced self- selection Monadic selection (3diets offered) (one diet offered) (3 diets offered) Diet A 18.4 32.9 3.1(High CHO) Diet C 9.3 68.7 57.3 (High Fat) Diet D 14.3 51.6 7.5(Intermediate)

TABLE 5 Mean daily intake (g) of macro-nutrient for each phase Phase 1Phase 2 Phase 3 Naïve self- Learning/Monadic Experienced selection DietA Diet C Diet D self-selection Protein 8.9 6.9 10.6 14.9 14.6 (g/day)Fat (g/day) 6.7 3.1 9.1 18.2 16.8 CHO 20.6 18.1 24.8 26.3 27.3 (g/day)

Tables 4 & 5 show the mean intakes in grams of the diets and themacronutrients, through the three phases of the trial. These also showthat the high carbohydrate diet was rejected after the initialexperiences of the naïve phase, in favour of the high fat diet.

FIG. 27 shows the mean C/FER for each cycle during each phase of thetrial. FER was lower than CER during the naïve self-selection for eachcycle (day).

CER intake was lower and FER was higher during the monadic learningphase than during the naïve self-selection phase and remained relativelyconstant during each 3-day cycle of the monadic learning phase.

During the experienced self-selection FER was higher than CER for allcycles (days).

This suggests that during the naïve phase the cats were learning thatthere was a difference between the 3 diets, and that in the followingtwo phases they were actively seeking out the fat enriched diet inpreference to the other two diets.

Conclusions

Analysis of cycle mean intakes showed that the high fat diet wasconsistently preferred to the other two diets, after the initialsampling in the naïve phase. This suggests that selection is takingplace and not merely a random sampling of diets.

Mean cycle intakes of the high fat diet were considerably higher thanthe other diets during both the learning monadic and the experiencedself-selection phases. There was a decreased intake of the highcarbohydrate and intermediate diets indicating they were less preferredto the high fat diet.

Previous trials show that cats will reject diets with a PER of 20% orless after a period of monadic learning. The PER was a constant in thistrial at 24% and as such has no impact on the macronutrient selection.

Analysis of feeding patterns showed that intake of the high carbohydrateand intermediate diets, in the naive phase, was greater in the timeslots between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. After this time all intakes weresimilar.

During the monadic learning phase the intake of the high fat diet washigher and the pattern also showed an upturn of intake in the 1:00am-5:00 am time-slot. This suggests that the cats had learnt that thenext meal would be a less preferred diet and were compensating for that.

Investigation of feeding patterns during the monadic learning phaseshowed that the cats didn't eat the high carbohydrate diet as readily asthe other test diets. This suggests that the cats were holding out foranother option.

Example 5

Effect of Macronutrient Profile on the Long-Term Acceptance of Food:

Effect of Varying Carbohydrate and Protein Energy Ratios

Summary

12 adult cats were fed 3 diets (one high in carbohydrate, one high inprotein and one intermediate). This study the followed the followingfeeding regime: 7-days of self-selection/3-way preference followed by24-days of monadic learning (one diet per day) and finally 7 days ofself-selection/3 way preference. Cats had approximately 22 hours accessto food every day during the trial. All 12 cats completed the trial.

The mean percentage change in bodyweight during the trial, for the catsthat completed the study was +2.3%.

The 1^(st) phase response of the cats to the 3 diets was that the highprotein was preferred (mean intake 41 g) over the intermediate and highcarbohydrate diets (mean intake 22.7 g & 5.1 g respectively). It shouldbe noted however, that the intake of intermediate was higher than highprotein on day I and they were the same on day 4.

The experienced response of the cats to the 3 diets was very similar tothat seen during the naïve self-selection. High protein diet waspreferred (mean intake 49.7 g) to the high carbohydrate and intermediate(mean intakes 2.9 g and 21.6 g respectively). As in the naïve phase itshould be noted however, that the intake of intermediate and highprotein on day I were similar and again on day 4.

Investigation of the mean proportion energy intakes of protein andcarbohydrate (PER/CER) showed cats consumed 28.8% PER, 21.6% CER in thenaive self-selection phase. The same analysis of PER/CER during theexperienced self-selection showed the mean proportion of macro-nutrientsconsumed to be 32.1% PER, 22.8% CER in the experienced self-selectionphase.

In summary, the high protein diet appeared to be hedonically morepalatable than the high carbohydrate and intermediate diets during boththe naive and the experienced self-selection.

This indicates that the macronutrient profile of the high protein diet(51 %PER,24%FER,25%CER) is preferred to both the intermediate (37%PER,23%FER,40%CER) and high carbohydrate (26%PER, 21%FER, 53%CER) diets.However, during the monadic leaming phase there was little distinctionbetween high protein and intermediate diets. The high carbohydrate wasstill rejected.

Introduction

The aim of this study was to assess diets with similar fat energy ratios(FER) but variable carbohydrate and protein energy ratios. One diet hada high protein energy ratio (PER), another had a high carbohydrateenergy ratio (CER) and a third diet had an intermediate energy ratio ofcarbohydrate and protein.

Methodology

Animals

Cats (n=12) were selected that had been fed dry kibble diets throughoutlife, from the weaning.

The cats were housed individually and were socialised as a group everyday.

Diets

Three dry kibble diets were fed during the study. The diets weredesigned to all contain the same level of fat whilst one diet wasenriched with carbohydrate, one enriched with protein and a third wasthe intermediate of the other two diets. Analysis of the diets providedthe predicted metabolisable energy (PME) content of each diet, thevalues of which are shown in Table 1. The protein, carbohydrate and fatcontent of each diet was analysed and calculated to provide the ratio ofeach macronutrient relative to the total energy (PME) of each diet i.e.Protein/Fat/Carbohydrate Energy Ratio (P/F/CER in Table 1). TABLE 1 PMEand macronutrient energy ratios for diets % expected Diet CodePER:FER:CER PME (Kcal/100 g) A (High 26/21/53 348 Carbohydrate) B (HighProtein) 51/24/25 333 E (Intermediate) 37/23/24 336Feeding Protocols

The feeding protocol used is set out in Example 2.

Bodyweights

Bodyweights were recorded twice weekly and closely monitored to ensureadequate food intakes.

Data Analysis

Is as set out in Example 2.

Results and Data Analysis

Animals

All of the 12 cats completed the study.

The mean percentage change in bodyweight from the start of the trial tothe end of the trial was +2.3% averaged over all cats.

FIG. 28 shows the mean intakes throughout the trial.

This chart shows the mean intakes throughout the trial. The 3 phases areidentified as:

Naïve=cycles 1 to 7

Learning=cycles 8 to 15

Experienced=cycles 16 to 22.

It is quite clear that the cats having sampled all the diets during thenaïve phase of self-selection, rejected the carbohydrate diet. Thepreferred diet was the high protein in the remaining 2 phases. Howeverin the monadic learning phase the intermediate diet was equally acceptedas the high protein.

P/F/CER selection as a potential driver of macronutrient selection

The mean PER intake was calculated as set out in Example 2.

Thus the daily/per cycle mean PER/FER/CER intake was calculated. (Seetable 3)

If random sampling had taken place and thus equal amounts of each dietwere eaten, the expected PER/FER/CER would be 38%/23%/39%. TABLE 3 Meancycle PER, FER and CER intake for each phase Phase 3 Phase 1 Phase 2Experienced self- Naïve self-selection Learning/Monadic selection PER(%) 43.5 39.9 44.7 FER (%) 23.6 23.9 23.5 CER (%) 32.9 36.2 31.8

Throughout all three phases FER intakes were as would be expected fromrandom sampling.

PER were greater and CER were less than expected if random sampling wastaking place.

This indicates that selection was being made rather than random samplingof the diets. TABLE 4 Mean daily intake (g) of each diet for each phasePhase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Naïve self- Learning/ Experienced self-selection Monadic selection (3 diets offered) (one diet offered) (3diets offered) Diet A 5.1 37.9 3.9 (High CHO) Diet B 41.0 73.9 49.8(High Protein) Diet E 22.7 72.1 21.9 (Intermediate)

TABLE 5 Mean daily intake (g) of macro-nutrient for each phase Phase 1Phase 2 Phase 3 Naïve self- Learning/Monadic Experienced selection DietA Diet B Diet E self-selection Protein 28.8 9.0 27.2 34.2 32.2 (g/day)Fat (g/day) 6.4 3.9 6.9 6.7 7.0 CHO 21.6 19.2 25.3 19.9 23.0 (g/day)

Tables 4 & 5 show the mean intakes in grams of the diets and themacro-nutrients, throughout the three phases of the trial. These alsoshow that the high carbohydrate diet was rejected throughout the trial.TABLE 6 Proximate dietary analysis and energy ratios Proximate analysis(g or kcal/100 g) Protein Fat CHO PME Energy Ratio (%) (g) (g) (g)(kcal) PER FER CER Diet A 23.8 10.3 50.6 348.0 26 21 53 (High CHO) DietB 46.3 9.0 26.9 332.7 51 24 25 (High Protein) Diet E 37.7 9.6 35 336.137 23 40 (Intermediate)

FIG. 29 shows the mean C/PER for each cycle during each phase of thetrial. CER was lower than PER through each cycle, in all three phases.This suggests that the cats identified and rejected the highcarbohydrate from the beginning. Conclusions

Analysis of cycle mean intakes showed that the high protein andintermediate diets were consistently preferred to the high carbohydratediet. This suggests that selection is taking place and not a randomsampling.

The high protein diet appeared to be hedonically more palatable than thehigh carbohydrate and intermediate diets during both the naive and theexperienced self-selection.

Mean cycle food intakes indicate that the macronutrient profile of thehigh protein diet (51%PER,24%FER,25%CER) is preferred to both theintermediate (37%PER, 23%FER,40%CER) and high carbohydrate (26%PER,21%FER, 53%CER) diets during naïve and experienced self selectionphases. However, during the monadic learning phase there was littledistinction between high protein and intermediate diets. The highcarbohydrate was rejected throughout all three phases.

The high carbohydrate diet (CER 53%) had a PER of 26% but was stillrejected over the other two diets. As the FER was similar for all threediets, it would indicate that the cats are making selection based onPER.

Analysis of feeding patterns in phase 1 the intake for high protein(diet B) is most preferred, followed by intermediate (diet E). The highcarbohydrate diet is consistently rejected throughout the day.

In phase 2 when the cats have no choice, they will eat all the diets butthe preference is fluctuating between high protein and intermediatediets, although at the time-slots 5 pm-1 am there is almost parityacross the 3 diets.

In phase 3 the high protein diet is clearly preferred to the other twodiets.

The highest mean intakes are between 9 am and 5 pm, presumablystimulated by outside influences of the working day.

Example 6

Regulation of Macronutrient Intake in Dogs

This report summarises the preliminary feeding data from the two dogmacronutrients studies. They are 1) Effect of macronutrient profile onthe long-term acceptance of dry dog food in Cocker Spaniels andMiniature Schnauzers and 2) Effect of macronutrient profile on thelong-term preference of dry dog food in Labradors at differentlifestages.

Rationale

A project investigating the effect of macronutrient profile on thelong-term acceptance of food in cats has been completed. Studies haveinvestigated the long term feeding responses of cats to diets withvarying amounts of protein, carbohydrate or fat. These trials haveemployed a specific methodology developed to investigate the catsability to learn post-ingestive nutritional consequences of any dietconsumed. Through these studies it has been identified that cats, whenallowed free choice between diets of different macronutrientcompositions, have the ability to change their diet preferences in orderto achieve a target macronutrient intake. It has also been noted thatthere are limits to the amount of carbohydrate and fat that cats arewilling to consume over a 24-hour period.

A project investigating the effect of macronutrient profile on thelong-term acceptance of food in dogs has now been completed. Theobjective of this project is to determine if, over an extended feedingperiod, dogs regulate their intake of individual macronutrients, andincludes:

Development of relevant methodology/protocols.

Investigation of specific dog breeds (e.g., Cocker Spaniel, Labrador,and St. Bernard).

Investigation of different dog sizes (e.g., toy, small, medium, large,and giant).

Investigation of different lifestages (e.g., puppy, adult, and senior).

The studies described examine the effect of macronutrient profile on thelong-term acceptance of food in dogs. These studies had severalobjectives, including:

Development of relevant methodology/protocols for use with dogs.

Determining if dogs are able to regulate their intake of individualmacronutrients.

Determining if dogs are able to regulate their intake of calories.

Animals

24 adult dogs (12 Miniature Schnauzers [small breed] and 12 CockerSpaniels [medium breed]) were included in the trial. All dogs had beenexposed to dry diets previously and are naïve to the experimental dietsat the commencement of this study. Dogs were randomised into dietrotation groups during the Learning/Monadic phase of the trial.

Diets

The prefeed stage involved feeding only one diet to the animals.Subsequent stages involved feeding three dry diets specificallyformulated to have a high protein-, fat-, or carbohydrate energy ratioas listed in Table 1, below: TABLE 1 Actual analytical dietary energyratios and energy contents. Actual Energy (Kcal/ Diet Code Diet TypePER/FER/CER (%) 100 g) Prefeed PED. Adv. Adult- 26:34:40 375 Mini A Highcarbohydrate 30:16:54 334 B High protein 52:24:24 344 C High fat21:52:27 447

All diets have been formulated to be nutritionally complete and withinWaltham Centre for Pet Nutrition (WCPN) minimum dog adult maintenanceguidelines for protein (16.0 g/400kcal) and fat (5.5 g/400kcal) content.

Protocol

The study was composed of five phases:

Phase 1: Prefeed (35 days). The dogs were offered the prefeed dry dietat 100% of their daily calorie requirement for 14 days. The amount wasthen increased to 200% daily calorie requirement for 21 days. Theprefeed phase was designed to acclimatise the dogs to the study feedingregime (am and pm feeding) and also to being offered food in excess oftheir daily calorie requirement.

Phase 2. Naïve Self-Selection (7 days). The dogs were offered three drydiets of different macronutrient ratio simultaneously each at 100% oftheir daily calorie requirement (300% total daily calorie requirementavailable).

Phase 3: Learning/Monadic (24 days). The dogs were offered each diet at100% of their daily calorie requirement individually over a 3 day cycle.Each cycle will be repeated 8 times during this 24 day learning phase.

Phase 4: Experienced Self-Selection 1 (7 days). The dogs were againoffered three dry diets of different macronutrient ratio simultaneouslyeach at 100% of their daily calorie requirement (300% total dailycalorie requirement available).

Phase 5: Experienced Self-Selection 11 (4 days). The dogs were offeredthree dry diets of different macronutrient ratio simultaneously each at200% of their daily calorie requirement (600% total daily calorierequirement available). The study was extended to include theExperienced Self-Selection II phase as it was noticed some of the dogswere eating all of the high fat diet being offered in ExperiencedSelf-Selection I phase. The amount of each diet offered was increased to200% daily calorie requirement.

NOTE: Daily calorie requirement calculated using WCPN recommendation of110 kcal/kg^(0.75).

Results

Data for the trial is presented in FIGS. 30 (Miniature Schnauzers) and31 (Cocker Spaniels). There was evidence of nutritional learning duringthe monadic phase where the preference for the high fat diet increasedas the learning phase progressed. This was especially evident for theMiniature Schnauzers. The preference for the high fat diet was higher,therefore, in the experienced self-selection phase I compared to thenaive self-selection phase. Indeed, it was noted that some of the dogswere eating all of the fat diet being offered in experiencedself-selection phase I, so it was decided to double the amount of eachof the three diets for an addition four days. It can be seen in theexperienced self-selection phase II that intake of the high fat dietincreased further, which was offset by a corresponding decrease in theintake of the high protein diet. The high fat diet was, therefore,significantly preferred over the high protein and high carbohydratediets in this phase. Intake of the high carbohydrate diet was lower thanthe intakes of either of the high protein and fat diets in all phases ofthe trail.

Animals

18 Labradors (6 puppies, 6 adults, and 6 seniors) were included in thetrial. All dogs had been exposed to dry diets previously and are naiveto the experimental diets at the commencement of this study. Dogs wererandomised into diet rotation groups during the Learning/Monadic phaseof the trial.

Diets

The same batch of diets used in the previous trial (directly above) werealso used in this trial, with an alternate prefeed.

Protocol

A modified trial protocol was used to take into account that Labradorsas a breed are perceived as being over-eaters. To prevent potentialweight gain, the maximum intake of the dogs was restricted in the naïveand experienced self-selection phases to about 110%, after which thediets were removed. The order in which the dogs ate each diet was alsorecorded. The reason the dogs were allowed to eat about 110% of theirdaily calorie requirement was to determine what the second diet ofchoice was if any dog went immediately to one bowl and ate all of onediet. The prefeed phase was critical in acclimatising the dogs to thetrial feeding regime and also to accept food being removed in the naiveand experienced self-selection phases.

The study was composed of four phases:

Phase 1: Prefeed (7 days). The dogs will be offered the prefeed dry dietat 100% of their daily calorie requirement.

Phase 2: Naïve self-selection (7 days). The Labradors will be offeredall three diets simultaneously each at 100% of their daily calorierequirement. After the dogs have eaten about 110% of their daily calorierequirement, the remaining diets are removed.

Phase 3: Learning/monadic (15 days). The dogs will be offered each dietat 100% of their daily calorie requirement individually over a 3 daycycle. Each cycle will be repeated 5 times during this 15 day learningphase. Note that this phase has been reduced by 9 days (3 cycles)compared to the trial above, where it appeared that 5 cycles wassufficient for the dogs to learn about the diets offered.

Phase 4: Experienced self-selection (7 days). The Labradors will beoffered all three diets simultaneously each at 100% of their dailycalorie requirement. After the dogs have eaten about 110% of their dailycalorie requirement, the remaining diets are removed.

NOTE: Daily calorie requirement calculated using WCPN recommendation of110 kcal/kg^(0.75).

Results

Data on the percentage of daily energy requirement consumed for eachdiet is presented in FIGS. 32 (Labrador—puppy), 33 (Labrador—adult), and34 (Labrador—senior). The results were similar to those obtained for theprevious trial on small (Miniature Schnauzers) and medium (CockerSpaniels) dogs. There was a significant preference for the high fat dietover the high protein and high carbohydrate diets for all lifestages.The preference for the high fat diet started from the onset of the naiveself-selection phase, but became more pronounced in the experiencedself-selection phase. For the puppy group, there was no differencebetween the high protein diet and the high carbohydrate diet, while boththe adult and senior groups preferred the high protein diet over thehigh carbohydrate diet. It is important to note that there was alsoevidence of the dogs regulating their calorie intake during thelearning/ monadic phase of the trial, where average intakes for the highprotein and high carbohydrate diets were less than 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodology/protocols have been successfully developed for studying theeffect of dietary macronutrients on food selection in dogs.

An important part of the dog study protocol involves a prefeed phase toacclimatise the dogs to the study feeding regime (am and pm feeding,excess food), which is different to the protocol used with cats.

It has been shown that when subjected to the appropriate feedingregime/protocol, dogs are able to regulate both their calorie andmacronutrient intake.

The trials completed on dry food have found that the dog breeds studiedthus far (Miniature Schnauzers, Cocker Spaniels, and Labradors) exhibita similar and significant preference for a high fat diet (high fat>highprotein>high carbohydrate).

It will be appreciated by persons skilled in the art that numerousvariations and/or modifications may be made to the invention as shown inthe specific embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope ofthe invention as broadly described. The present embodiments are,therefore, to be considered in all respects as illustrative and notrestrictive.

1. A multi-component foodstuff comprising two or more compartmentalisedfood compositions, of which at least two compositions differ in theircontent of at least two of fat, protein or carbohydrate.
 2. Thefoodstuff, as claimed in claim 1, wherein the difference in the contentof at least two of fat, protein and carbohydrate is of at least 1% on anenergy ratio basis.
 3. The foodstuff, as claimed in claim 1, wherein thedifference in fat content is of from I to 40% on a fat:energy ratio. 4.The foodstuff, as claimed in claim 1, wherein the difference in proteincontent is of from 1 to 40% on a protein:energy ratio.
 5. The foodstuff,as claimed in claim 1, wherein the difference in carbohydrate content isof from 1 to 40% on a carbohydrate:energy ratio.
 6. The foodstuff, asclaimed in claim 1, wherein at least one component is a driedready-to-eat cereal product.
 7. The foodstuff, as claimed in claim 1,wherein one component comprises at least 40% fat on an energy ratiobasis and a different component comprises at least 40% protein on anenergy ratio basis.
 8. The foodstuff, as claimed in claim 1, for use inproviding an optimum macronutrient diet to an animal.
 9. The foodstuff,as claimed in claim 1, for use in animal weight maintenance.
 10. Thefoodstuff, as claimed in claim 1, for use in animal health benefit. 11.The foodstuff, as claimed in claim 1, wherein the food compositions areseparately packaged.
 12. (canceled)
 13. A method of providing an optimummacronutrient diet to an animal, the method comprising: feeding saidanimal a multi-component foodstuff, the foodstuff comprising two or morecompartmentalised food compositions of which at least two compositionsdiffer in their content of at least two of fat, protein or carbohydrate.14. A method of animal weight maintenance, the method comprising:feeding said animal unlimited quantities of a multi-component foodstuff,the foodstuff comprising two or more compartmentalised food compositionsof which at least two compositions differ in their content of at leasttwo of fat, protein or carbohydrate.
 15. A method of promoting animalhealth, the method comprising: feeding said animal a multi-componentfoodstuff, the foodstuff comprising two or more compartmentalised foodcompositions of which at least two compositions differ in their contentof at least two of fat, protein or carbohydrate.